Program Review of the College of Forest Resources
March 27, 2009
Review Committee:
Chair: Thomas Quinn, Professor, UW School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
William Rodgers, Stimson Bullitt Professor of Environmental Law, UW School of Law
Donald Miller, Professor, UW Department of Urban Design and Planning
Richard Standiford, Associate Vice President, Division of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, University of California
C. Tattersall Smith, Dean and Professor, Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto
Introduction
The Review Committee (RC) began its work following receipt of the appointment letter,
dated December 17, 2008 from Gerald J. Baldasty, Interim Vice Provost and Dean of the
Graduate School and James Soto Antony, Associate Dean for Academic Programs. A
binder of materials was provided by the College of Forest Resources (CFR) including an
Academic Program Review Self-Study document and also documents pertaining to the
review carried out in 1996 (report from the review committee, CFR response to the
report, administrative actions, etc.).
On January 21, 2009 the members of the committee (by teleconference in the case of Drs.
Smith and Standiford) met with James Soto Antony, Associate Dean for Academic
Affairs and Planning, Bruce Bare, Dean, College of Forest Resources, Stephen D. West,
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, College of Forest Resources, Gordon Bradley,
Professor and Faculty Chair, College of Forest Resources, John D. Sahr, Associate Dean,
Undergraduate Academic Affairs, and Augustine McCaffery, Senior Academic Program
Specialist, The Graduate School. At this meeting we discussed the goals of the review
and various aspects of the process including administrative and logistic matters. It was
recognized that the timing of the review is unusual and presents special challenges, as it
comes during a period of severe budgetary problems and also in the early stages of the
formation of the College of the Environment (CoEnv). The final composition of the
CoEnv, in terms of core academic units, has not been finalized but a majority of the CFR
faculty voted to enter CoEnv. For the purposes of this review we assumed that CFR
would become a school and be among the core units in CoEnv. However, we realize that
this is not a fait accompli and we do not intend to substitute our judgment for that of the
Reorganization, Consolidation, and Elimination of Programs (RCEP) process.
Members of the review committee decided to adopt the committee’s charge and use that
as the focus of the review. To quote from the charge: The most important objective of
your review is an assessment of the academic and educational quality of the College.
Important questions include:
1) Are they doing what they should be doing?
2) Are they doing it well?
3) How can they do things better?
4) How should the University assist them?”
1
Key Findings
Overall Impression
Overall, it is the unanimous impression of the committee that the CFR is a high quality,
well-respected unit both nationally and internationally. It has undergone remarkable
positive changes in morale and substance since the previous (1996) review and is now
much stronger. We noted the exceptional atmosphere of mutual respect among
representatives of all the groups with whom we met: a collegial, productive faculty with
many well-chosen new hires, articulate and engaged undergraduate and graduate
students, dedicated and loyal staff, and a transparent and responsive administration.
There have been very significant changes in the curriculum at both undergraduate and
graduate levels in recent years. These seem to have resulted from successful long-range
planning efforts, and reflect changes in the demographics of students (e.g., more women
and a greater focus on conservation and ecology-related aspects of forestry and natural
resources) and also changes in the external environment (need for forestry to integrate
more closely with aquatic and fisheries research, urban and suburban systems,
environmental conservation issues, sustainability, etc.). Specifically, CFR formerly
offered seven undergraduate degree programs with total enrollment of 208 students in
2003.
In recent years the enrollment has increased to 156 graduate students and 250
undergraduates in autumn, 2008. Undergraduate enrollment growth over the past 5 years
was over 20 percent. Enrollment increased by over 18 percent in both the ESRM and PSE
majors in the past year alone. These changes in enrollment in CFR took place despite
relatively constant overall undergraduate enrollment at the University of Washington. It
is tempting to ascribe the increases to the specific changes made by CFR but this is
difficult, given the diversity of factors affecting enrollment. We conclude, however, that
the current curriculum is more appealing and easier for students to understand and seems
to position the CFR to take advantage of the changes within and outside the University of
Washington. We anticipate that CFR will need to develop metrics to assess the extent to
which students trained in these programs are prepared for and considered by employers to
be well qualified for the diversity of employment opportunities that await them upon
graduation.
Notwithstanding the many positive changes in the CFR since the 1996 review, three
major uncertainties were repeatedly noted by faculty, staff, students, and administration
alike. These uncertainties are linked in many ways, and together seemed to pose the
main challenges for the CFR.
First, there are serious concerns about budgetary matters. Obviously, the fall of 2008 and
winter of 2009 have seen significant financial upheavals throughout the country, with
effects on the State of Washington budget that will greatly affect the University of
Washington. CFR cannot be immune to the budget cuts that inevitably result from these
problems but uncertainty about the magnitude of the cuts and the ways in which they
might affect staff, students and faculty clearly affected the people with whom we met.
2
A second area of uncertainty is tied in with the College of the Environment (CoEnv) as
approved by the Board of Regents. Sixty percent of the faculty of CFR voted to enter the
CoEnv and, although we did not consistently poll this topic since it was not part of our
charge, we perceived support for this move and optimism about the new College, in
general. However, many aspects of the position of CFR in the new College are uncertain,
including, but not limited to, perceptions about this change by alumni and representatives
of the outside community with whom CFR interacts (e.g., federal, state, and local
agencies that manage forest land, industrial forestry companies, non-governmental
organizations) and the possible conflict within the new CoEnv between natural resource
programs (i.e., Forest Resources and the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences) and
programs pursuing more basic and largely physical sciences (i.e., Earth and Space
Sciences, Atmospheric Sciences, and Oceanography). Some of these units have not
voted yet to join the new College, so all discussion of the new College had a speculative
tone. Nevertheless, this will likely have profound effects on the entire Forest Resources
program at the University of Washington.
The third area of uncertainty relates to the future administration of the CFR. We see clear
reasons for the University of Washington central administration to promptly make
decisions that will ease the transition into the next biennium and the new CoEnv, should
that move occur. We note that Bruce Bare has served as Dean of the CFR for eight years
and all materials we reviewed, and the overall tone of our review, suggested that he has
done an excellent job. The 1996 report to the Graduate School noted a number of
problems linked to previous administration’s style and substance that affected morale
among faculty and students. These problems seem to have been overcome, thanks to the
transparent leadership style and commitment to collegial strategic planning of Dean Bare.
Indeed, the entire administrative team (Chair of the Faculty Gordon Bradley, Associate
Dean for Academic Affairs Stephen West, and Associate Dean for Research Robert
Edmonds) are to be praised for their roles in the improvements in the CFR. However,
both Dean Bare and Chair Bradley are scheduled to step down from their administrative
posts at the end of June 2009 and this will leave the CFR in a particularly weak position
at the very time when fiscal challenges and potential transition from a college to a school
within the CoEnv will require experienced leadership. We were repeatedly told that the
uncertainty as to who would lead the unit and how the difficult transitions would be
handled were causing stress and providing the main sources of tension within the CFR
community. These concerns should be dealt with quickly and decisively. We strongly
urge the central University of Washington administration to put this uncertainly to rest as
soon as possible by explaining clearly how the process will unfold, who will lead the
unit, and in what capacity (e.g., interim Dean, interim Director of a school, etc.). Failure
to move decisively could set back many of the very positive accomplishments that have
taken place in the past decade. Continuing the current administration through the
potential transition was mentioned as an effective and no-cost solution to a serious
problem.
Teaching
The graduate program offers Master of Science and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in
Environmental Science and Resource Management, with Research Interest Groups in
3
Bioresource Science and Engineering, Forest Ecology, Forest Soils, Forest Systems and
Bioenergy, Restoration Ecology and Environmental Horticulture, Social Sciences,
Sustainable Resource Management, and Wildlife Science. This represents a large
change, brought about in 2004, from a series of programs with separate coding into one
with common requirements. There are also degrees of Master of Forest Resources
(MFR) with Society of American Foresters accreditation, and Master of Environmental
Horticulture (MEH). These latter two programs are professional degrees with only a
single curricular pathway in each.
Graduate students spoke highly of the quality of the faculty, in terms of scholarship, and
also accessibility and mentoring. Comments by Graduate School Representatives on the
PhD exams indicated generally rigorous examination processes and enrollment by highly
qualified students. We conclude that the graduate program is increasing in quality as a
consequence of several factors: improved faculty quality including hiring of numerous
talented assistant professors, improved morale in the entire college, and outstanding
office staff. Faculty and students (both graduate and undergraduate) were unanimous in
their effusive praise for the skill and compassion of the student services staff; these
individuals evidently have played an important role in the increased enrollment and
improved student morale.
The undergraduate program has been consolidated from seven former programs into two:
Environmental Science and Resource Management (ESRM) and Paper Science and
Engineering (PSE). The ESRM program has options in Landscape Ecology and
Conservation, Restoration Ecology and Environmental Horticulture, Sustainable Forest
Management, and Wildlife Conservation. These changes were put in place in 2004 and
have been associated with increased enrollment. The programs are too new to allow full
assessment of their success but all indications are that they were well-designed and will
better suit the future interests of the undergraduate student body than the previous, more
complex and traditional curriculum. Interviews with undergraduate students revealed
similar trends to the graduate student interviews described above. In addition, students
were especially positive about the strong emphasis on quality teaching by the CFR
faculty and the access to them for advice and feedback.
Accreditation of the PSE program by the national Accreditation Board for Engineering
and Technology (ABET) was renewed in 2007. The program has significant endowment
support for enrolled students and excellent job prospects for those who graduate.
Therefore, although enrollment is small, and the nature of the program is more closely
aligned with Chemical Engineering in many ways than forestry curricula, it seems
sufficiently successful and well-integrated into CFR for us to recommend no change in its
status. Indeed, the faculty with whom we met in this program, were motivated, forwardlooking, and eager to see their program join the CoEnv. They are making efforts to
include new areas of materials science related to wood and bio-based products, and
biofuels in their research and teaching. The main concern that we have for this program
is that the faculty are so few in number that they are at risk of not having sufficient
“critical mass” to sustain the program. Teaching loads for PSE staff seem to be high; the
4
ability to teach the required classes depends on continued involvement of recently retired
faculty, and also places heavy demands on new faculty.
Although the teaching program appears to be strong overall, we are concerned about the
limited funding for teaching assistants. This was identified in the 1996 report as an area
of concern by graduate students, and does not appear to have been satisfactorily
addressed. The faculty and administration were frank in stating that the State of
Washington teaching budget is inadequate to support the number of TAs needed, and so
funding associated with vacant faculty positions are currently being used to provide
support. This is clearly not an ideal situation for various reasons, but will be especially
so in the new College, where such vacant positions will likely be controlled by a new
dean. This situation is exacerbated by pending budget cuts that may further constrain the
range of options. Support for TAs is exceptionally important and a good value,
especially for a program such as CFR. First, teaching assistants are critical to the safety
of undergraduate students in field and lab classes that are essential to the success of CFR.
Second, they greatly enhance the quality of the courses by virtue of their interactions with
students. Third, they free up valuable faculty time for research and administrative
activities. Fourth, they provide training for the graduate students who serve in this role.
The TA duties typically cause graduate students to consolidate their mastery of the
material. Moreover, those graduate students seeking academic careers find the training
critical for the development of their skills and their resumes. Finally, the TA positions
provide a critical safety net of funding for graduate students and a source of matching
funds that faculty often can leverage with outside grant support. Strong financial funding
packages are essential for the competitiveness of University of Washington in recruiting
highly qualified graduate students. We believe that increased support for teaching
assistants will benefit the CFR and UW in general in these and other ways, and encourage
UW administration to implement related recommendations.
Research
The CFR has long had a strong reputation for high quality research in basic and
applied aspects of forestry and forest sciences, joining the University of British Columbia
and Oregon State University as the leading institutions in the Pacific Northwest.
Examination of the resumes of the faculty indicates that the reputation is consistent with
current quality. There has been a remarkable turnover of faculty, with 23 retirements or
departures and an equal number of new faculty hired since 1996. The new faculty
members have been hired in specialty areas determined on the basis of CFR’s successful
strategic planning process and reflect changes in the overall focus of the CFR from
traditional forest management to broader environmental conservation and sustainable
natural resource and community development based on strengths in economic, social and
environmental, and ecological sciences. We believe this transition was remarkably well
done, realigning traditional programs, such as pulp and paper, in directions thought best
by experts in that field while taking on new challenges (e.g., climate change) brought to
the fore by contemporary research.
The CFR has eleven facilities, centers and institutes that focus on specific aspects of the
diverse research mission of the college. These units are all different from each other, in
5
terms of history, present size and scope, extent and source of research support, facilities,
clientele served, involvement in the teaching mission of CFR, and other important
attributes. They include, for example, several large facilities (Pack Forest, the University
of Washington Botanic Gardens, and the Olympic Natural Resources Center) and some
that are vigorous but rely on human resources more than infrastructure (e.g., the Center
for International Trade in Forest Products (CINTRAFOR) and the Water Center). We
found it very difficult to adequately assess these centers and institutes in the time
available to us because of their diversity as a group and complexity as individual units.
Rather, we urge the CFR to continue to critically assess each unit, considering the costs
of administration and facility maintenance, utilization in teaching and research, and
relevance to the mission of CFR and the CoEnv. We see these centers as major potential
resources for the new CoEnv. They are a key mechanism to involve stakeholders in
mission-oriented research programs. As most of the directors of these centers approach
retirement in the next few years, new leadership will need to be recruited in the context of
a rationalized strategic plan for all centers.
Faculty
We met with members of the faculty in several small groups, and were impressed by their
level of morale and commitment to the program. We were particularly impressed with
the assistant professors, with whom we met separately from the tenured faculty. The
faculty (both senior and junior) generally conveyed a collegial attitude towards each
other, optimism regarding their future in the CoEnv, and respect for CFR students, staff
and administration. It is clear that the faculty as a whole have taken the comments from
the 1996 review very seriously and made many steps, along with the administration, to
address the problems that were noted. Specifically, the earlier report noted “sharp, public
disagreements among certain faculty, that have been personal in nature, centering on
professional differences about the use and management of forests and their resources”.
These disagreements are no longer a major issue within the faculty. Particularly
noteworthy is the organized mentoring effort provided to the large cohort of assistant
professors, which bodes well for their future success. The overall improvement in morale
was evident, but we were repeatedly struck by concerns related to the budget, the
transition to the CoEnv, and the uncertainty as to who will lead the unit in the near future.
These concerns were expressed by junior and senior faculty as well as administrative
staff, and threaten the strength and cohesion of the unit as a whole.
Administration
The 1996 report noted “an ‘us versus them’ division between the faculty and the College
administration resulting from differences of view about certain internal decisions made
over the previous years.” We were pleased to note that the administration of the CFR is
currently widely perceived as fair and their actions transparent for all to see. Indeed,
Dean Bare has gone to unusual lengths to make his memos and decisions accessible to
those who wish to scrutinize them. We heard praise for the administration’s fiscal
management, commitment to strategic planning, shared governance and respect for
faculty and staff. These give good reason for optimism for the future. However, as noted
elsewhere, there are concerns as to who will lead the CFR, and in what capacity, in the
upcoming months as the transitions to the next biennium and the new college take place.
6
Conclusions and Recommendations
The College of Forest Resources is a strong unit that has responded in many ways to the
constructive comments in the 1996 Graduate School review. The administration has
changed in both personnel and managerial style, the curriculum has been streamlined and
revised, the faculty rejuvenated and motivated by new hires, and the student enrollment
and morale have improved. We did not detect any fundamental weaknesses within the
unit but rather were impressed by the positive steps that have been taken and the benefits
to the program. We see no reason why the next Graduate School review should be any
sooner than the normal period of ten years from this review.
The CFR is troubled primarily by external forces, most notably by uncertainty regarding
1) the budgetary crisis affecting the University of Washington and the broader
community at this time, 2) the transition from status as a college to a school within the
CoEnv, with all the attending issues related to self-control, changing set of peers
evaluating faculty promotion and tenure decisions, access to resources and information,
and other important matters, and 3) uncertainty as to who will lead the College/School of
Forest Resources into the new administrative realm and the upcoming biennium. We
urge the University of Washington to provide as much assistance as possible to this unit
to allow it to continue its trajectory of improvement and to prevent unnecessary stress to
faculty, staff and students during this unsettling period.
The changes in the academic program are exciting and show great promise in terms of
student enrollment and quality of education. It is too soon to know how successful these
will be in the long run, and we recommend that CFR develop metrics to assess how wellsuited the students are for the current and likely future career opportunities across the
range of fields that are open to students. Conversations with the CFR’s Visiting
Committee revealed diverse expectations regarding the skills and background that
graduates should have.
The PSE program is small but vital, and provides training for students in an area with
good prospects for employment. We commend the PSE faculty for their efforts to
integrate with the rest of the CFR and to consider their role in the broad mission of the
CoEnv. However, the number of faculty is small for the teaching demands, and we
recommend that the CFR administration determine what level of faculty will be needed to
maintain the vitality of PSE and to make plans accordingly.
The 1996 Graduate School review identified the inadequacy of funding for graduate
students in general, and the availability of teaching assistant positions in particular, as a
concern. Despite the best intentions of the administration, this issue has not been
resolved. We recognize that in some disciplines graduate students are not universally or
even typically supported during their years at the university, whereas in other disciplines
it is expected that financial support will be provided for the student and his/her research
needs (e.g., equipment, travel, field assistants, etc.). We recommend that teaching
assistant positions be prioritized highly, and that efforts be made to provide financial
support to graduate students to the greatest extent possible.
7
The CFR is a complex unit, and the many centers enhance the program but place ongoing
demands as well. The recent review by The Ad Hoc Committee for Review of College of
Forest Resources Centers (chaired by Dr. Robert Edmonds, report dated February 27,
2009) identified the strengths and weakness of each unit, and highlighted their diversity.
The combination of present and likely future financial problems, significant underutilization of some facilities, uncertain leadership (in some cases) and diversity of clients
and funding sources make these units unwieldy as a group. The CFR faculty and
administration will need time to carefully consider the Ad Hoc Committee’s report
(which was completed after our committee’s site visit) but the status quo does not seem
sustainable. If any units are to be eliminated or consolidated the decision should be based
on likely future contributions rather than the past, and underutilized units will need
specific plans or their financial needs may compromise other programs.
Closing Remarks
As a committee we are grateful to the Graduate School for the opportunity to conduct this
review. We deeply appreciate the efforts of the many CFR faculty members, staff,
administrators, and students who took the time to meet with us and also to facilitate our
visit. We hope that our comments are taken as constructive and positive, and that they
are helpful in the enhancement of this important part of the University of Washington.
8